As someone from outside the USA, I'm curious as to whether there is any way that such an important price drop could be implemented on its own (in order to help those who need this change as quickly as possible) or whether the only way it can be implemented is as an addendum to unrelated items (I don't imagine there would be many politicians who would try to block such a price decrease for Insulin, so it should pass easily on its own)?
Over here, such an item would be put forward on it's own to be voted for by parliament (rather than as part of a compilation of unrelated items), and so it seems strange that such a thing isn't happening over there.
Off Topic
I was also under the impression that the price was already $35 per month, but perhaps it has increased in line with inflation (or some other cause):
Quote:
In fairness, however, the Trump Administration has cut out-of-pocket costs insulin costs for seniors. In March, the administration announced a plan to impose an upper limit on what seniors pay at the pharmacy counter; $35 a month. Starting in January 2021 Medicare beneficiaries will have more than 1,600 Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans to choose from that will provide a range of insulin products at a maximum of a $35 monthly co-payment. This is lower than the typical $47 co-payment plans impose in 2020.
I don't imagine there would be many politicians who would try to block such a price decrease for Insulin, so it should pass easily on its own)?
In the USA politicians don't fear voters, they fear donors.
Here's what happens, for example, when the democrats control the governorship, the senate and the assembly in California, and all of them want to pass a medicare for all bill, but health insurance money kills it.
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 Age: 50 Gender: Male Posts: 3,998 Location: Melbourne, Australia
10 Feb 2022, 11:30 pm
TenMinutes wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I don't imagine there would be many politicians who would try to block such a price decrease for Insulin, so it should pass easily on its own)?
In the USA politicians don't fear voters, they fear donors.
Here's what happens, for example, when the democrats control the governorship, the senate and the assembly in California, and all of them want to pass a medicare for all bill, but health insurance money kills it.
So, if they really wanted to decrease the price of the medication (and help those who may be struggling to pay the current price), they could simply (and easily) introduce legislation for the specific (and sole) purpose of doing this (which would almost ceertainly pass), rather than forcing it to be dependant on anything else being passed with it?
No. They simply wouldn't do that. Their donors will not allow it. It probably wouldn't make it out of committee. If it did, they wouldn't bring it up for a vote. If it came up, anyway, enough of them would find reason to vote against it. If it somehow managed to pass, the governor (or president), even if he campaigned for it, would veto it.
We have already gone through this for medicare for all in the House. Democrats control it. If they passed M4A, it would put pressure on the senate to do the same. Before they had a majority, the democrats were all for it. But now that they control the House, they will not bring it up for a vote.
Theoretically, it would be nice to know every member's stand on M4A, so there was a push to bring it up for a vote, even if there aren't enough votes to pass it. Pelosi refuses to do that.
There was a call to not support Pelosi for speaker unless she agreed to bring it up for a vote. That drive went nowhere, despite lots of new congress members vowing to resist her if they needed to, and despite there being enough of them that they could have stopped important legislation to hold it hostage until there was action on M4A. They didn't do that. It came up again for Build Back Better. They could have blocked the infrastructure bill until BBB came up. THey didn't do that.
They will not use the power they have, because enough of them are corrupt that nothing can get done that benefits ordinary people.
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 Age: 50 Gender: Male Posts: 3,998 Location: Melbourne, Australia
11 Feb 2022, 1:13 am
Absent donor-related complications, though (assume there were no donors\no donors had any interest one way or the other in this area): If they intended to help people by reducing the price of this medication, could they initiate a piece of legislation for that sole reason, or does legislation in the USA have to be a composite item containing many unrelated items?
Off Topic
Given the price was to drop to $35 at the end of January last year, what has it risen to (given Mr Biden thought a return to $35 was worth tweeting about), and what has caused the increase?
10 Feb 2022, 10:23 pm
